Parks and Public Landscaping Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2018 03 01

Home Browse Search

t Dean Johnson From: David Powell Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 10:54 AM To: Dean Johnson; Susan Loo Subject Next PPLAB Meeting and Cottonwood Trees Dear Ms. Toon and PPLAB Members, Although I am grateful to receive notice from Mr. Johnson about the PPLAB meeting tomorrow, I am also alarmed and troubled to see that the question of removal of the cottonwoods at the Recreation Center has returned to this Board's agenda. As I recall, and Mr. Stevens' memo acknowledges, PPLAB voted in favor of keeping the trees: not removing them, providing safety fencing and signs around the trees' calculated fall line, and rerouting the path that runs between the trees to an area outside the fall line, using the existing social path. The PPLAB's recommendation for saving the trees was then supposed to be taken forward by the Parks Department to the City Council for discussion and budget consideration, if the Council accepted it as a discussion item. While saving the trees was not guaranteed by PPLAB's decision, what all of us who attended that December PPLAB meeting expected next was that a proposal to discuss the trees' fate, and possibly the financing of how to preserve them, would be advanced to the Council by the Parks Department. It appears that is not what happened. Mr. Stevens' recitation of the history of this tree issue makes clear that he saw in the PPLAB's decision an opportunity for a "re -do" of their choice to save the trees. Despite the fact that PPLAB heard much public comment, heard the Parks Department presentation (including that of the Urban Forester), had considerable discussion among themselves, and then voted to try to do whatever might be reasonably possible to save the trees, the Parks Dept. asked the City's insurer to review the PPLAB decision. is this how Louisville government is supposed to operate? The losing side", if it is part of city govemment, gets a second chance to achieve its desired outcome, by retuming the issue to the Board for a second vote? Was there something wrong with the conduct of the original vote that would warrant a second vote? Or, is PPLAB a board whose input and advice can be ignored at will by the Parks and Recreation Department? It is entirely predictable that an insurer which favored removal of the trees would reiterate the same opinion given the chance to weigh in again. Insurers follow the most conservative path available that will save them money. Likewise, it comes as no surprise that a second arborist would note the decline in the trees, and advise the same approach as the City's Forester. These arguments were heard and thoroughly discussed during the November and December PPLAB meetings, alternatives were presented which included methods proposed for preserving the trees while protecting the public, and a vote was taken, which favored trying to preserve the trees. These second opinions from the insurer and the private arborist add nothing new to the discussion. The only type of "second opinion" I recall being discussed occurred at the November meeting, when Mr. Lichty mentioned that the trees' health could be further characterized by using some kind of electrical -resistance scanning of the trunks. Everyone who participated in these meetings understands the difficuities of fulfilling the PPLAB's stated desire to try to save these trees.