Manteno board debates tree replacement plan, procurement and maintenance concerns

The Village of Manteno board spent its meeting examining options to replace trees dying from blight and salt damage, weighing a low bid for nine trees against broader maintenance and procurement questions.

Board members reviewed a bid to replace nine trees for about $9,300 and discussed a longer-term program to replace roughly 50 trees this year and a similar number in the next one to three years. A village arborist, as relayed to the board, said many street trees were dead or failing and cautioned that fertilizing could accelerate decline rather than help recovery. The board asked that future plantings mix species rather than repeat the same pear monoculture that preceded the current losses.

Members debated how to contract the work. Options included separate requests for proposals (RFPs) for tree removal and for installation, or one combined contract that would require a bidder to manage both tasks. Trustees flagged a practical concern: the utility and irrigation infrastructure beneath many tree sites would require hand-digging and careful excavation, and contractors warned there is a material risk of damaging underground lines. The board noted that contract language must allocate responsibility for repairs if damage occurs and asked staff to include standard hold‑harmless and repair clauses.

Several trustees also emphasized post‑planting care. Some trees on berms have irrigation but still failed, and board members said the schedule and duration of watering were not always clear; staff said irrigation schedules are set approximately twice weekly but the length of coverage varies. The board asked that any large RFP include specifications for backfill, soil mix and watering responsibilities (for example, required irrigation or temporary watering bags) so bidders price long‑term establishment work rather than just planting and mulch.

A local contractor discussed the practicalities of over‑digging holes and proper topsoil replacement; trustees asked that RFPs set minimum hole sizes and soil requirements rather than leaving those details implicit. One member said that if the village wanted to limit the number of separate subcontractors on site it might be more cost‑effective to issue a single, integrated contract.

No formal vote was taken. Staff said they would prepare RFP language that covers both removal and installation options, include specifications for planting and site restoration, and return to the board for review.

What happens next: staff will prepare RFP options and specifications for board consideration; timing for any planting was discussed as likely in the fall for larger replacement efforts given summer heat concerns.