Danville advisory board reviews GIS tree‑mapping tool, flags budget and maintenance follow‑ups

The Tree Advisory Board met and reviewed a vendor-built GIS tree inventory and asset-management proposal intended to integrate with the town’s Esri mapping system and support work orders and routine maintenance.

A presenter from staff told the board they had engaged a third party to compile the urban forestry report and create a map-based management tool that will flag ordinance compliance, show “hot spots,” and track trees removed and planted over time. The presenter said the vendor’s software will cost about $1,800 per year and will be used to schedule inspections and maintenance: “This is what I want to do on an annual basis,” the presenter said, describing automated reminders and calendar integration to help staff and contractors manage service tasks.

Board members pressed on coverage and ownership. One member asked whether the inventory counts include trees in Parker-owned areas and in rights of way; the presenter confirmed that every town‑owned tree—whether in the right of way or on town property—is included in the model. Board members also clarified that developers originally planted many street trees and then turned them over to the town, not to homeowner associations, which can create public-feedback and maintenance questions when residents notice trees near sidewalks or signs.

On inventory size, the presenter reported the contractor logged roughly 2,056 inventoried trees and identified about 2,540 available planting spaces across town. Members discussed a list of planned removals: one committee member cited about 98 trees scheduled for removal, noting roughly 48 were marked low priority and about 40 marked at higher priority; the presenter cautioned that removing a small number of large trees can change aggregate totals for the town. The presenter also said the vendor corrected earlier misses in the field after a follow-up—specifically, four oak trees were added back into Danville’s inventory after the contractor returned to re-check locations.

The presenter described vendor experience in other states and said the mapping product included photos and location-based recommendations for where trees should or should not be planted to prevent future infrastructure conflicts. The board discussed species observed in the inventory (including red chokecherry and other landscape trees) and noted the list does not indicate invasive species.

Members discussed next steps and timing. The presenter said she will circulate links and demonstration access ahead of a planned demonstration and that the board should plan budget discussions early: the town’s budget process starts in July with final approvals typically December. The presenter also noted the board expects to meet Tree City USA thresholds and that application windows toward year‑end will require early work next year.

The meeting concluded with routine notes about sidewalk trimming and curb work at specific intersections (members cited Columbia and Tennessee as a constrained right‑of‑way where an existing utility pole limits widening). The board approved the previous meeting minutes by voice vote and adjourned.

What’s next: the presenter plans to share the map link and schedule a demo before the August meeting so members can review the inventory, suggest corrections, and consider the $1,800 annual software subscription during upcoming budget deliberations.